[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: 00 01 02 draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options

ippm,6man                                                    S. Bhandari
Internet-Draft                                              F. Brockners
Intended status: Standards Track                            C. Pignataro
Expires: September 29, 2019                                        Cisco
                                                              H. Gredler
                                                            RtBrick Inc.
                                                                J. Leddy
                                                                 Comcast
                                                               S. Youell
                                                                    JMPC
                                                              T. Mizrahi
                                        Huawei Network.IO Innovation Lab
                                                                 A. Kfir
                                                                B. Gafni
                                             Mellanox Technologies, Inc.
                                                             P. Lapukhov
                                                                Facebook
                                                              M. Spiegel
                                                       Barefoot Networks
                                                             S. Krishnan
                                                                  Kaloom
                                                                R. Asati
                                                                   Cisco
                                                          March 28, 2019


                        In-situ OAM IPv6 Options
             draft-ioametal-ippm-6man-ioam-ipv6-options-02

Abstract

   In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) records
   operational and telemetry information in the packet while the packet
   traverses a path between two points in the network.  This document
   outlines how IOAM data fields are encapsulated in IPv6.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any



Bhandari, et al.       Expires September 29, 2019               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation           March 2019


   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 29, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     2.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  In-situ OAM Metadata Transport in IPv6  . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) records
   operational and telemetry information in the packet while the packet
   traverses a path between two points in the network.  This document
   outlines how IOAM data fields are encapsulated in the IPv6 [RFC8200].

2.  Conventions








Bhandari, et al.       Expires September 29, 2019               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation           March 2019


2.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.2.  Abbreviations

   Abbreviations used in this document:

   E2E:       Edge-to-Edge

   IOAM:      In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance

   OAM:       Operations, Administration, and Maintenance

   POT:       Proof of Transit

3.  In-situ OAM Metadata Transport in IPv6

   In-situ OAM in IPv6 is used to enhance diagnostics of IPv6 networks.
   It complements other mechanisms proposed to enhance diagnostics of
   IPv6 networks, such as the IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics
   Destination Option described in [RFC8250].

   IOAM data fields are encapsulated in "option data" fields of two
   types of extension headers in IPv6 packets - either Hop-by-Hop
   Options header or Destination options header.  The selection of a
   particular extension header type depends on IOAM usage, as described
   in section 4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].  Multiple options with the
   same Option Type MAY appear in the same Hop-by-Hop Options or
   Destination Options header, with varying content.

   In order for IOAM to work in IPv6 networks, IOAM MUST be explicitly
   enabled per interface on every node within the IOAM domain.  Unless a
   particular interface is explicitly enabled (i.e. explicitly
   configured) for IOAM, a router MUST drop packets which contain
   extension headers carrying IOAM data-fields.  This is the default
   behavior and is independent of whether the Hop-by-Hop options or
   Destination options are used to encode the IOAM data.  This ensures
   that IOAM data does not unintentionally get forwarded outside the
   IOAM domain.

   An IPv6 packet carrying IOAM data in an Extension header can have
   other extension headers, compliant with [RFC8200].




Bhandari, et al.       Expires September 29, 2019               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation           March 2019


   IPv6 Hop-by-Hop and Destination Option format for carrying in-situ
   OAM data fields:


   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |   Reserved    |   IOAM Type   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
   |                                                               |  |
   .                                                               .  I
   .                     Option Data                               .  O
   .                                                               .  A
   .                                                               .  M
   .                                                               .  .
   .                                                               .  O
   .                                                               .  P
   .                                                               .  T
   .                                                               .  I
   .                                                               .  O
   .                                                               .  N
   .                                                               .  |
   |                                                               |  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+


   Option Type:  8-bit identifier of the type of option.

   Opt Data Len:  8-bit unsigned integer.  Length of the Reserved and
      Option Data field of this option, in octets.

   Reserved:  8-bit field MUST be set to zero upon transmission and
      ignored upon reception.

   IOAM Type:  8-bit field as defined in section 7.2 in
      [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].

   Option Data:  Variable-length field.  Option-Type-specific data.

   In-situ OAM Options are inserted as Option data as follows:

   1.  Pre-allocated Tracing Option: The in-situ OAM Preallocated
       Tracing option defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] is
       represented as a IPv6 option in hop by hop extension header:

       Option Type:  001xxxxx 8-bit identifier of the IOAM type of
          option. xxxxx=TBD.

       IOAM Type:  IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option Type.




Bhandari, et al.       Expires September 29, 2019               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation           March 2019


   2.  Incremental Tracing Option: The in-situ OAM Incremental Tracing
       option defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] is represented as a
       IPv6 option in hop by hop extension header:

       Option Type:  001xxxxx 8-bit identifier of the IOAM type of
          option. xxxxx=TBD.

       IOAM Type:  IOAM Incremental Trace Option Type.

   3.  Proof of Transit Option: The in-situ OAM POT option defined in
       [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] is represented as a IPv6 option in hop
       by hop extension header:

       Option Type:  001xxxxx 8-bit identifier of the IOAM type of
          option. xxxxx=TBD.

       IOAM Type:  IOAM POT Option Type.

   4.  Edge to Edge Option: The in-situ OAM E2E option defined in
       [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] is represented as a IPv6 option in IPv6
       option in destination options extension header:

       Option Type:  000xxxxx 8-bit identifier of the IOAM type of
          option. xxxxx=TBD.

       IOAM Type:  IOAM E2E Option Type.

   All the in-situ OAM IPv6 options defined here have alignment
   requirements.  Specifically, they all require 4n alignment.  This
   ensures that 4 octet fields specified in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
   such as transit delay are aligned at a multiple-of-4 offset from the
   start of the Hop-by-Hop Options header.  In addition, to maintain
   IPv6 extension header 8-octet alignment and avoid the need to add or
   remove padding at every hop, the Trace-Type for Incremental Tracing
   Option in IPv6 MUST be selected such that the IOAM node data length
   is a multiple of 8-octets.

4.  Security Considerations

   This document describes the encapsulation of IOAM data fields in
   IPv6.  Security considerations of the specific IOAM data fields for
   each case (i.e., Trace, Proof of Transit, and E2E) are described in
   defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].

   As this document describes new options for IPv6 , these are similar
   to the security considerations of [RFC8200] and the new weakness
   documented in [RFC8250].




Bhandari, et al.       Expires September 29, 2019               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation           March 2019


5.  IANA Considerations

   This draft requests the following IPv6 Option Type assignments from
   the Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options sub-registry of
   Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters.

   http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-
   parameters.xhtml#ipv6-parameters-2

      Hex Value    Binary Value      Description           Reference
                   act chg rest
      ----------------------------------------------------------------
      TBD_1_0      00   0  TBD_1     IOAM                  [This draft]
      TBD_1_1      00   1  TBD_1     IOAM                  [This draft]

6.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Tom Herbert, Eric Vyncke, Nalini
   Elkins, Srihari Raghavan, Ranganathan T S, Karthik Babu Harichandra
   Babu, Akshaya Nadahalli, Stefano Previdi, Hemant Singh, Erik
   Nordmark, LJ Wobker, Mark Smith, and Andrew Yourtchenko for the
   comments and advice.  For the IPv6 encapsulation, this document
   leverages concepts described in [I-D.kitamura-ipv6-record-route].
   The authors would like to acknowledge the work done by the author
   Hiroshi Kitamura and people involved in writing it.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
              Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H.,
              Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes, D., Lapukhov,
              P., Chang, R., and d. daniel.bernier@bell.ca, "Data Fields
              for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-01 (work in
              progress), October 2017.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.






Bhandari, et al.       Expires September 29, 2019               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation           March 2019


7.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.kitamura-ipv6-record-route]
              Kitamura, H., "Record Route for IPv6 (PR6) Hop-by-Hop
              Option Extension", draft-kitamura-ipv6-record-route-00
              (work in progress), November 2000.

   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc8200>.

   [RFC8250]  Elkins, N., Hamilton, R., and M. Ackermann, "IPv6
              Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination
              Option", RFC 8250, DOI 10.17487/RFC8250, September 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8250>.

Authors' Addresses

   Shwetha Bhandari
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Cessna Business Park, Sarjapura Marathalli Outer Ring Road
   Bangalore, KARNATAKA 560 087
   India

   Email: shwethab@cisco.com


   Frank Brockners
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Kaiserswerther Str. 115,
   RATINGEN, NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN  40880
   Germany

   Email: fbrockne@cisco.com


   Carlos Pignataro
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   7200-11 Kit Creek Road
   Research Triangle Park, NC  27709
   United States

   Email: cpignata@cisco.com







Bhandari, et al.       Expires September 29, 2019               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation           March 2019


   Hannes Gredler
   RtBrick Inc.

   Email: hannes@rtbrick.com


   John Leddy
   Comcast

   Email: John_Leddy@cable.comcast.com


   Stephen Youell
   JP Morgan Chase
   25 Bank Street
   London  E14 5JP
   United Kingdom

   Email: stephen.youell@jpmorgan.com


   Tal Mizrahi
   Huawei Network.IO Innovation Lab
   Israel

   Email: tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com


   Aviv Kfir
   Mellanox Technologies, Inc.
   350 Oakmead Parkway, Suite 100
   Sunnyvale, CA  94085
   U.S.A.

   Email: avivk@mellanox.com


   Barak Gafni
   Mellanox Technologies, Inc.
   350 Oakmead Parkway, Suite 100
   Sunnyvale, CA  94085
   U.S.A.

   Email: gbarak@mellanox.com







Bhandari, et al.       Expires September 29, 2019               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       In-situ OAM IPv6 encapsulation           March 2019


   Petr Lapukhov
   Facebook
   1 Hacker Way
   Menlo Park, CA  94025
   US

   Email: petr@fb.com


   Mickey Spiegel
   Barefoot Networks
   4750 Patrick Henry Drive
   Santa Clara, CA  95054
   US

   Email: mspiegel@barefootnetworks.com


   Suresh Krishnan
   Kaloom

   Email: suresh@kaloom.com


   Rajiv Asati
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   7200 Kit Creek Road
   Research Triangle Park , NC  27709
   US

   Email: rajiva@cisco.com




















Bhandari, et al.       Expires September 29, 2019               [Page 9]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/